@Michael Dunne, perhaps your reply was removed, I can't locate it. You failed to note that it was Wells' shame post WWI at having supported that war which contributed to his decision to walk away from the Fabians and to describe them in those words "liberal Fascist". Perhaps indeed the editors dropped your comments because they might think you would be mistaken for a professional troll when the only charge due is one of ineptitude, failing to read my words, and doing your learning while sitting in front of a contrived film on Wells that lionised all that which he came to regard as shameful.

No, my entry is still there. Wells ran as a labor candidate in the 1920s, so he didn't roam too far from the Fabians.

I don't believe he was referring to fabians as "liberal fascists" - I believe he was being provocative, and trying to say liberals should take action and mobilize like the fascists at the time appeared to have been doing (that was in the early 1930s, when the Fascists and Communists and what not were spewing propaganda as being men of action).

I am not sure any sober film lionizes Wells from a political perspective in the US due to his socialist beliefs and dedication to a one world government.

@Michael Dunne If you are trying to drag me into the deliberate hash Goldberg made of taking on the lineage of liberal fascism then think again. This however is a relevant comment :

David Gordon, a libertarian scholar with the Mises Institute, wrote in his review "Fascism, Left and Right" that "Jonah Goldberg has ruined what could have been a valuable book." While offering agreement with some of Goldberg's underlying thesis concerning the progressive nature of fascism, Gordon nonetheless finds insurmountable flaws to the book. Gordon states that
"[Goldberg] seems to me too ready to call any resort to "identity politics" fascist; and while he criticizes the 'compassionate conservatism' of George Bush, he turns a blind eye to the effects of Bush's bellicose foreign policy on the domestic scene. Goldberg himself supports the Iraq war; when one is faced with a "good" war, apparently, the link between war and fascism no longer need be of concern"

On Wells, you simply need to be better informed. You could even type 3 words into Duck Duck Go and proceed from there. You know little of anything in terms of sources yet profess to have his measure. This is appropriate : http://jch.sagepub.com/content/35/4/541.abstract

But so too note that well after the utopian 1931 Oxford speech and before the onset of WWII Wells had entered the space that would be responsible for his last book in 1945 called "Mind at the End of its Tether" where Wells contemplates that it might not be a bad idea if humanity was replaced by another species. If you don't see that as abject contrition for his espoused liberal fascism then there is no hope for you.

Provide source documents of either works directly written by HG Wells or transcripts of his speeches. Until then it is all just accusation and speculation.
I believe the record shows HG Wells to have been a socialist, with a strong dose involvement in activism, reform and electoral politic; and wanted to see stronger assertiveness of his side in pursuing its program, especially when facing challenges by the rise of fascism ( and possiby Soviet communism).

The Taliban and Al Qaeda are not Americans; and they have been killing the vast majority of civilians, even by the accounts of the UN. Starting to create a new refugee problem too in Afghanistan, an issue that was getting resolved once Taliban misrule was brought to a end.

As I explained the term was coined by H.G.Welles and unless there is some reason in your charge I won't be detained further than this reply to you.

My polemic is not reserved for the US or Europe. If you read other of my comments you will find that I attack the duplicitous fabian Nehru with equal vigor. When I say that liberalism and progressivism are not forces for good, you say that your language and semantics inform you that this cannot be.... the thought police have you by the throat figuratively, but more literally they are seeking to exterminate those seeking to defend their right to self determination, cultural integrity, and religious integrity. Those that live in non western nation states are no longer being accorded Westfalian principled legitimacy.

Moreover, don't think that the western imperial endeavour is a successful one. Debt, smoke for collateral, and productivity tell you otherwise. I also ask you to name those instances measured in the medium-long term of a successful imperial power COIN operation. The scorecard says that if you are forced to run a large scale COIN operation you have already lost.

My observations (in the limited context of walking alone on a city/suburban street at night)
-China was way, way safer than the US
-Egypt (when I was there 10 years ago) was far safer than the US. I went there with all the American paranoia of 'Islamic terrorists' and was was pleasantly astonished to note that the people were friendly and hospitable

Egypt did experience a violent Islamic Insurgency from 1986 to 1999. Here is an excerpt from a professor that talks on that war:

"From 1986 to 1999, Egypt experienced a wave of Islamist violence as 474 attacks killed and injured over 2,000 people. Perhaps most notable was the 1997 attack in Luxor in which 10 German tourists were killed. The Egyptian government responded to the violence with a campaign of repression through arrests, trials, and executions. By 1999 the violence had dissipated, though some insurgents went on to form the core of al-Qaida"

I have to wonder if the US advised the Egyptians in any way or took notes when Iraq went south?

As for crime, I noticed states like the UAE and Saudi Arabia seemed pretty safe when visiting. Wouldn't be suprised if that was the case with Egypt too (have strict crime conrolling regime that produces results).

I am not at all surprised by China's high peace index. My family and I have been to China about a dozen times. We have been to a lot of cities and villages. Not at one time have we felt unsafe. You can walk alone at night.

You can see also that relaxed atmosphere in the way people behave. We pass by people, even young girls, walking alone without fearing for their safety.

Many comments seem to get wrong what "peacefulness" means for the purposes of this index.

It is not just personal safety (measured by murder rates, for example). This is only part of the picture, other parts concerning a country's behavior in the world (conflicts, weapons exports/imports, etc...).

This should explain how Brazil, Argentina and other South American countries are in the same bracket as rich countries as France or the US.

You can have more violent societies, in terms of personal safety, which are, at the same time, more peaceful countries in terms of their relations to neighbours and the world at large - no wars, no huge military or weapons industry.

That's certainly the case of Brazil and its neighbours. Present or former imperial powers/rich countries, like the US, France or Britain, would be just the opposite.

In 2010, Brazil had almost 50 thousand violent homicides. I'm Brazilian and I don't know whether I can be glad for having our "peaceful" society being compared to France, Italy and US or.. whether I get scarried for knowing how bad these countries are going on.
-
I only compare my cuntry with democracies.. as we use to say here: "Assim manifesto, e o resto é resto" ("So I manifest, and the rest is rest")

How is this indicator composed? The main components should be the murder rate, the chance to die in a war or in a terrorist act and the percentage of imprisoned people. Other things certainly make people unhappy (unemployment, corruption, robbery, rape, child abuse or slavery) but they are hard to quantify.

This index is flawed. I am surprised that The Economist sister company allowed itself to publish such a paper with apparent ridiculous conclusions.

Looking at the Israel ranking, 150(!) out of 158, is LOWER than Syria, with some 15,000 dead in a civil war.

Looking at the different criteria building up to this flawed results, it is clear the criteria have to be reviewed and modified.

What are the poorest scored items that reduce Israel's ranking to such a low position?

1. Weapons exports, the lowest ranking figure. Israel exports are very strong, yielding billions of dollars to its coffers, and this item is considered a disadvantage?
2. Military capabilities - Also here, Israel gets the lowest score possible. Shouldn't it be the other way around? - yes, there are countries like Switzerland or Sweden which do not need strong armies. Good for them. But still, if someone needs strong military capabilities, and he has them, this should make him safer, not weaker.
3. Heavy weaponry - Israel has heavy weaponry. This makes it safer, not riskier. Why give it the lowest braking possible?
4. Same goes for a very low score on armed services personnel. Yes, there are many of them, but this makes Israel safer, not vulnerable.
Actually – Items 2-4 above are all the same item – strong army, only one that is used to provide 4 poor criteria.
Most ridiculously, if Israel didn't have a strong military, heavy weapons, and armed personnel, Israel would score higher on this index, but would have been much less safer and with less peace.

The makers of this index need to review its criteria, as the result does not reflect the reality. It is funny to find Egypt, Yemen, and even Syria and Libya are considered safer and more peaceful than Israel. Syria with its 10,000 dead in the past year, is safer than Israel?!

I agree with the two issues you point out, and indeed those criteria are reflected in the presentation in the form of 'Terrorist Acts' and 'Neighboring Countries Relations'. Fine.

This is itself is not enough to rank Israel so low. A bunch of criteria which I mentioned make no sense, and there are additional ones, like for example poor rating on 'Political Terror'. What on Earth is that!?... There is no political terrorism in Israel. Are politicians terrorized???

Under 'Other Factors' you find all elements supporting strong peaceful ratings, from high GDP per capita of over $30,000 to very strong on political participation' and 'political process', but the worst scoring for people 'Willingness to fight', as if this is bad for peace. Because Israel's enemies know Israelis are willing to fight, they are deterred. hadn't Israelis be willing to fight, the onslaught was on its way already!!

This is a very poor report, totally unrepresentative of the situation in Israel, at least.

What has strong arms exports got to do with a nation being peaceful or not, anyway?

Actually the drug trade, prevalence of guns, growth of kidnapping as a business and weak civil authority seem to have pumped up cime rates.

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime had Pakistan at a higher murder rate than the US back in 2004. Pakistan at 6.3 per 100,000 folks; versus the US' 5.9.

And the UN and Interpol all seem to convey the impression that Pakistan's crime stats should be taken with a huge grain of salt due to under-reporting (or ignoring, it is one of the most corrupt countries too based on Transparency indices).

There is also an insurgency and civil disorder taking place (see Pakistan Taliban).

For perceived criminality, violent crime and homicides, this index was a bit negative towards Pakistan (and was ranked worse than the US on those measures).

It is amazing how great Canada does in this comparison, especially if you think how many immigrants the country has. People, especially in Europe, tend generally to believe that immigrants decrease peacefulness.
However, the growing income inequality may not be helping: http://tmblr.co/Z_pc5wNE7yVR

Tibet, Xichuan and very close and obscure government relations with 'friend' neighbors like North Korea, Pakistan, Mianmar and terrorists from north India can give you the direction to answer your question..

I would hazard a guess that such impressions/questions may arise due to:
- China being a dictatorship
- Reported disorders across the countryside (granted that is hotly debated)
- Memories of the Communist party cracking down on demonstrators in Tiananmen Square (granted that was a long time ago, but impressions can last)
- Doubts about official stats, like prison populations, actual defense spending, etc.

obscure government relations didn't cause any virtually big harms to peacefulness so far as far as I'm concerned. and which country doesn't have some obscure relations with their neighboring countries? and terrorists tell me something about rating peacefulness?wow~

all of the points you made either has not direct impact on peacefulness(as dictatorship) or exists in many other countries as well. And, doubts or small group's tragedy(compared to its whole population)--not to mention it's a very long time ago-- cant be used to score a country's peacefulness i guess?

Oh well, we somehow get by, here in India! More seriously, the link to the site gives India high (less peaceful) score on access to weapons whereas India has very serious restrictions on bearing of arms by citizens. Unless they consider security forces and non state actors (internal and external terrorists) which would account for the lesser peace scores....

There are two countris down Europe.. next to Greece.. they were almost black in 2007...now, they are almost White... what happened there, a miracle?!
It's serious.. it had the same colour of Russia, Colombia, North Korea and Pakistan..